Question No. 1525—
Ms. Kirsty Duncan:
With regard to national sport organizations (NSOs) with contribution agreements with Sport Canada (SC), and that have or had non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with employees and coaches: (a) is SC monitoring which NSOs have NDAs with employees and coaches; (b) for each NSO, what are the details of each NDA, broken down by the year or years in place; and (c) for each NSO in (a), has the agreement ever been used, and, if so, when, and for what purpose?
Response
Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), at this time, Sport Canada is not monitoring which national sport organizations have non-disclosure agreements with employees and coaches. However, in her May 11, 2023, announcement to foster a safe and sustainable culture change in sport, the previous minister for sport reiterated that non-disclosure agreements or non-disparaging clauses should never be used to prevent athletes and other sport participants from disclosing maltreatment they have experience or witnessed. Consistent with national efforts to this end, Sport Canada will include a clause in its funding agreements with national sport organizations that will prohibit any national sport organization contracts, policies, procedures or actions that restrict participants’ rights under the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.
With regard to part (b), at this time, Sport Canada does not monitor non-disclosure agreements and therefore is not able to confirm which national sport organizations might have them and what the details might be.
With regard to part (c), as per the answer to part (b) above, these details are not available.
Question No. 1526—
Mr. Kevin Vuong:
With regard to the proposed redesign of the Canadian passport: (a) which minister and government department initiated the passport redesign project; (b) what public consultations were held on the new illustrations to be contained on the redesigned passport pages; (c) who determined, and on what basis, the replacement of the former pages of the passport; and (d) how much did the redesigned passport project cost?
Response
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the proposed redesign of the Canadian passport, the development of the new passport began in 2013 following the launch of the last passport design. The new theme was approved by the Minister of IRCC on July 4, 2019, and the final images were approved by the minister on November 16, 2020.
The theme of the passport was first identified more than 10 years ago from surveys of passport applicants conducted by the passport program. Subsequent consultations, including with the Government of Canada’s forensic specialists at the Canada Border Services Agency and with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Heritage and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, were conducted to provide additional insight and inclusivity.
Industry standard and best practice is to refresh security features and passport booklet design every five years. This aligns with the recommendations set forth by the International Civil Aviation Organization. Changing the theme and the design of our passport is an important step in preventing counterfeiting by integrating new and more advanced security features and design techniques. The change also ensures that there is a clear distinction of imagery between each passport in the old and new series, which ensures ease of validation of the travel document and security features by border services agencies globally.
The passport redesign is a milestone from the ePassport Next Generation project. An expenditure authority in the amount of $161 million has been provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat to design, develop and deploy Canada’s ePassport Next Generation suite of travel documents and all related printing equipment, software and infrastructure by October 2024. This initiative is fully funded from the passport program revolving fund. Costs specific to the redesign cannot be provided, as the vendor costs for this milestone were combined with other project implementation deliverables.
Question No. 1527—
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the passport design unveiled on May 10, 2023: (a) what are the details of all spending related to the redesign of the new passport, broken down by item and type of expense; (b) who were the artists and companies that were used for the design and images in the new passport, and how much was each paid for their work; (c) what are the details of the consultations related to the redesign, including, for each consultation, the (i) names of organizations or individuals consulted, (ii) date, (iii) form (roundtable, online questionnaire, etc.), (iv) outcome, recommendation, or feedback provided; (d) during consultations, did anyone support removing Terry Fox from the passport design, and, if so, who; (e) during consultations, did anyone voice support for removing Nellie McClung from the passport design and, if so, who; (f) during consultations, did anyone voice support for removing the Vimy Ridge Memorial from the passport design, and, if so, who; (g) during consultations, did anyone voice support for removing Quebec City from the passport design, and, if so, who; (h) what is the total cost of all consultations which have occurred to date; (i) what is the breakdown of consultation costs by date and line item; (j) have any outside consultants or service providers been involved in the development of the new passport’s design, and, if so, what are the details of each consultant or service provider's involvement, including the (i) name of the individual or firm, (ii) contract value, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) description of the goods or services provided; (k) how many government employees or full-time equivalents worked on the redesign and consultations; and (l) what are the (i) travel, (ii) hospitality, costs associated with the redesign and consultations incurred to date, in total, and broken down by year and type of expense?
Response
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the newly unveiled Canadian passport was delivered as part of a comprehensive project led by IRCC to replace the passport booklet and all related production printing equipment and infrastructure to produce this new passport. The Treasury Board of Canada has approved a project budget of $161 million for this project, which began in 2016, and it includes costs payable to the Canadian Bank Note Company, CBN, for various project deliverables.
With regard to part (b), as part of the project, Canada launched a competitive procurement process in June 2016, and on May 24, 2019, a contract was awarded to the CBN to deliver this solution for the Government of Canada. CBN was responsible, per the contract, for the development of the designs for the new passport following the decision on theme by the Minister of IRCC. The contract was awarded for $284 million, as posted at https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/request-your-own-supplier-contract-history-letter/canadian-bank-note-company-limited?order=award_date&sort=desc#award_date, for printed matter, including books, newspapers, pictures, manuscripts and forms.
With regard to part (c), the new passport design has undergone consultations, including with the Government of Canada’s forensic specialists at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency, and with Canadian Heritage and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. The theme was selected following a series of annual surveys conducted by the passport program. These were conducted by phone with a statistically relevant sample size for that year of Canadian passport holders.
With regard to parts (d), (e), (f) and (g), consultations with forensic specialists were focused on the security features of the new passport. The surveys were conducted on broad themes for the design of the new passport, and not on the inclusion of images or representations of specific individuals or events.
With regard to parts (h) and (i), at this point in time and due to time constraints, the cost specific to this question is not known, as this was included as part of a broader survey conducted on passport operations with Canadian passport holders on an annual basis.
With regard to part (j), yes, CBN is under contract with the Government of Canada to redesign the Canadian passport as part of the full ePassport Next Generation solution and infrastructure procurement. The contract was awarded for $284 million, as posted at https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/request-your-own-supplier-contract-history-letter/canadian-bank-note-company-limited?order=award_date&sort=desc#award_date, for printed matter, including books, newspapers, pictures, manuscripts and forms.
With regard to part (k), approximately 2.5 IRCC full-time equivalents, FTEs, worked on the passport redesign as part of the ePassport Next Generation project.
With regard to part (l), there were no travel or hospitality costs incurred to redesign the Canadian passport.
Question No. 1528—
Mr. Don Davies:
With regard to the government's treatment of Egyptian refugees: (a) does the Minister of Public Safety consider (i) Canadian citizens, (ii) permanent residents, (iii) foreign nationals, who joined or participated in Egypt's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) after the 2011 Egyptian revolution, to participate in Egypt's democratic elections to be a danger to the security of Canada; (b) why has the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) deemed FJP-affiliated refugees inadmissible to Canada; (c) will the Minister of Public Safety grant ministerial relief to those Egyptian refugees who have been deemed to be inadmissible to Canada because they joined or participated in the FJP after the 2011 Egyptian revolution to participate in Egypt's democratic elections; and (d) will the Minister of Public Safety issue a directive to resolve the CBSA's inconsistent treatment of Egyptian refugees with FJP affiliation to ensure that all refugees are treated equally, impartially, and consistently?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, officials are legally required to apply legislation, including the membership provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, passed by Parliament. They do so in an equal, impartial and consistent manner, in line with the law and the guidance of the courts, as well as based on comprehensive national guidance and management oversight to ensure objectivity. The CBSA’s role is to gather evidence and to present allegations, but for serious inadmissibility allegations that require an admissibility hearing, they are not the decision-maker; the Immigration Refugee Board is the decision-maker, based on an assessment of the evidence presented by the CBSA and by those who are alleged to be inadmissible.
With regard to (i) to (iii) of part (a), Canadian citizens are not subject to inadmissibility provisions under IRPA. Only permanent residents and foreign nationals can potentially be inadmissible to Canada. All cases, including persons affiliated with the Freedom and Justice Party, are assessed and reviewed on a case-by-case basis for inadmissibility concerns, and only those for which there is a sound evidentiary basis may end up being reported as inadmissible. The CBSA role is to conduct admissibility investigations, gather evidence and, if well founded, present the allegation.
No such case has led to concerns related to the specific inadmissibility provision for danger to the security of Canada. Instead, they relate to inadmissibility for being a member of an organization for which there are concerns that it engaged in impugned acts, which is in paragraph 34(1)(f) of IRPA. Of note, when determining inadmissibility relating to membership in any such organization, IRPA does not require that an individual be found to pose a threat or danger to Canada.
With regard to part (b), like most of the serious inadmissibilities, the membership inadmissibility allegation requires the decision of an impartial, quasi-judicial tribunal, in this case the immigration division, ID, of the Immigration and Refugee Board, IRB. This means that the IRB is the final decision-maker where these matters are at issue and that the CBSA cannot deem any person inadmissible in these circumstances unilaterally.
If an officer determines that there is robust evidence to support an allegation of inadmissibility, they may report the person as inadmissible. Subsequently, a different officer must then review that report to determine whether the report is well founded. If that officer so concludes, the report can then be referred to the ID of the IRB for adjudication at an admissibility hearing.
Finally, in any case where a person is found inadmissible, that person can pursue a judicial review before the Federal Court of Canada, which did occur in one of these case. The court upheld the finding of inadmissibility at that time, thereby dismissing the judicial review.
With regard to part (c), if a person is found to be inadmissible for certain provisions, including membership inadmissibility as in these cases, they may make an application for ministerial relief to the Minister of Public Safety. In order to be eligible to submit an application for relief, an individual must have a final determination of inadmissibility, such as a removal order issued by the IRB or an application for temporary or permanent residence refused by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and must satisfy other requirements as set out in the immigration and refugee protection regulations. The Minister of Public Safety assesses the merits of eligible applications to determine whether or not a grant of relief would be contrary to Canada’s national interest. If the minister decides to grant relief, it would mean that the person would not be considered inadmissible thereafter on the basis of the grounds for which relief was provided. Each ministerial relief application is assessed on its own case-specific facts and circumstances. As such, it is not possible to predetermine the outcome of any pending or anticipated requests for relief.
With regard to part (d), the CBSA treats any case before it on a case-by-case basis, in a dispassionate and impartial manner, and based on the facts before it at that time. The agency prioritizes serious inadmissibility matters from an investigative perspective and provides its officers an array of functional, operational and program guidance to support and assist them in the execution of their mandate and duties. All guidance is updated to reflect the evolving jurisprudential environment. Any possible enforcement action taken must comply with the law and existing operational and program policies, and is subject to rigorous and independent review at multiple steps, including by CBSA officers and the IRB, which is the independent adjudicating tribunal, with the availability of judicial review by the Federal Court of Canada against any decision taken.
Question No. 1531—
Ms. Michelle Ferreri:
With regard to the new passport design unveiled on May 10, 2023: (a) what is the detailed timeline of all actions (calls for proposals, designs reviewed, ministerial approval, etc.) associated with the development of the new passport from when the government first considered changing the passport; and (b) for each action in (a), who was responsible for overseeing that particular part of the process?
Response
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to parts (a) and (b), please find the timeline concerning actions associated with the new B series passport design below.
In January 2013, the current passport, the A series, was launched. Research and development efforts began, to document specifications for future passport contracts based on lessons learned from the 2011 contract. The office of primary interest, OPI, was Passport Canada’s security bureau.
There are survey results from 2016, 2017 and 2018. Passport program surveys are conducted to collect data from recent applicant passports holders on a range of questions, including possible themes for the design of the next passport. The OPI was Passport Canada’s security bureau and program integrity branch.
In June 2016, the request for information was posted on buyandsell.gc.ca. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
On June 13, 2017, the invitation to qualify was posted on buyandsell.gc.ca to select pre-qualified bidders. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
On April 27, 2018, the request for proposals was posted to pre-qualified bidders. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
Other government departments, OGD, were consulted in 2019 and 2020. Consultations were conducted with forensic experts at the CBSA and the RCMP, and with Canadian Heritage and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, CIRNAC.
On May 24, 2019, the contract was awarded to the Canadian Bank Note Company Ltd. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
On July 4, 2019, the Minister of IRCC approved the theme of the design. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
On May 20, 2020, the Minister of IRCC approved a preliminary version of the design and provided suggestions for adjustments. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
On November 16, 2020, the Minister of IRCC approved the final design of the passport. The OPI was IRCC, citizenship and passport programs branch.
Following ministerial approval of the aesthetic design, content was converted into detailed security features, and the design went through several manufacturing and testing steps involving multiple international suppliers. The pandemic, health restrictions, staff illnesses and supply chain issues had repercussions on the project as a whole, adding two years to the original one year that should have been required to complete this work.
Question No. 1533—
Mr. Clifford Small:
With regard to the government's decision to remove the images of the Vimy Ridge Memorial and Billy Bishop from the Canadian passport: (a) were any veterans groups or The Vimy Foundation consulted about the removal of the images prior to the unveiling, and, if so, which ones, and what feedback did they provide; and (b) if the answer to (a) is negative, why was the decision made not to consult veterans groups and who made the decision?
Response
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the passport program conducted annual client satisfaction surveys with Canadians beginning in 2011. This included possible themes for the new Canadian passport. A new design is required in order to maintain the integrity of the new passport and to align with international security best practices of a five-year passport redesign cycle. Based on the survey results, a new passport theme, “The four seasons in Canada”, was proposed and subsequently approved by the Minister of IRCC.
With regard to part (b), consultations on the new theme and images occurred, including with the Government of Canada’s forensic specialists at the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and with Canadian Heritage and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. Due to the secrecy of the passport design and security features, there were limitations to the number of groups that could have access to the design.
Question No. 1534—
Mr. Damien C. Kurek:
With regard to costs associated with the new passport design unveiled on May 10, 2023, as well as the accompanying news conference: (a) what were the total costs associated with the new passport, broken down by type of expense; and (b) what are the details of all contracts signed by the government related to the new passport, and the unveiling and promotion of the new design, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) vendor, (iii) amount, (iv) description of the goods or services, (v) details of whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process?
Response
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the passport redesign is a milestone from the ePassport Next Generation project. An expenditure authority in the amount of $161 million has been provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat to design, develop and deploy Canada’s ePassport Next Generation suite of travel documents and all related printing equipment, software and infrastructure by October 2024. This initiative is fully funded from the passport program revolving fund.
With regard to part (b), as part of the project, Canada launched a competitive procurement process in June 2016, and on May 24, 2019, a contract was awarded to the Canadian Bank Note Company, CBN, to deliver this solution for the Government of Canada. CBN was responsible, per the contract, for the development of the designs for the new passport. The contract awarded was for $284 million, as posted at https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/request-your-own-supplier-contract-history-letter/canadian-bank-note-company-limited?order=award_date&sort=desc#award_date, for printed matter, including books, newspapers, pictures, manuscripts and forms.
Question No. 1536—
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to judicial vacancies: what is the number of vacancies, as of May 16, 2023, broken down by province or territory and level (Federal Court, Superior Court of Justice, etc.)?
Response
Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada updates the data pertaining to judicial vacancies shortly after the beginning of each month. It can be found at the following link: https://www.fja.gc.ca/appointments-nominations/judges-juges-eng.aspx.
Question No. 1543—
Mrs. Dominique Vien:
With regard to the $25 million announced in budget 2022 for the Menstrual Equity Fund: (a) how much of the $25 million has been spent to date; (b) what is the breakdown of spending by province and territory; (c) what is the breakdown of spending to date, by line item and type of expenditure; and (d) what are the details for all funding recipients to date, including, for each the (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) recipient, (iv) location?
Response
Hon. Marci Ien (Minister for Women and Gender Equality, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the menstrual equity fund, MEF, is a pilot project intended to provide menstrual products to those most in need by addressing barriers related to affordability and stigma that some Canadians face when accessing menstrual products. Through extensive consultation in 2022-23 with grassroots organizations, and bilateral and group discussions with the indigenous women’s circle, not-for profit organizations, the private sector and provinces and territories, the Department for Women and Gender Equality, WAGE, discovered the complexity of the menstrual equity landscape across Canada. The pilot project is a first step to address challenges many menstruators face as they go about their daily lives. The pilot project will serve as a precursor in laying groundwork for future national solutions to menstrual equity in Canada, using key research results and data as made available through the first menstrual equity fund.
With regard to part (a), none of the funding for the national pilot for a menstrual equity fund committed in budget 2022 has been spent to date. The Department for Women and Gender Equality dedicated time in the 2022-23 fiscal year to undertake research, engagement and analysis to inform the design of the pilot, which centres on selecting one national not-for-profit organization to distribute menstrual products to grassroots organizations in select yet-to-be determined pilot sites, and to partner with several grassroots organizations already advancing menstrual equity to scale up their education and awareness activities. A targeted call for proposals was launched on May 29, and will close on June 23, to solicit applications from national organizations. Funding will only be allocated to the successful national organization once the final agreement is in place.
With regard to part (b), through the MEF pilot project, WAGE will test a pan-Canadian approach to menstrual product distribution and increase education and awareness on menstruation. One national organization will be selected to implement the pilot across Canada, in diverse geographical contexts with high concentrations of low-income populations disproportionately impacted by period poverty, including high-density urban areas; rural, northern and remote locations; and indigenous and two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex plus, 2SLGBTQI+, communities. While it is expected that the pilot will have locations in most of the provinces and territories, the estimated breakdown of spending by province and territories will not be known until the agreement with the selected national organization is finalized.
With regard to part (c), no funds have been spent to date.
With regard to part (d), the funding has not yet been allocated.
Question No. 1548—
Mr. Sébastien Lemire:
With regard to the national sport organizations (NSOs) that have signed an agreement with the Office of the Sports Integrity Commissioner and have a contribution to pay for signing on to the “Abuse-Free Sport” program: (a) how many participants are covered; (b) what is the detailed description of those participants; (c) how much did each NSO pay out in 2021-22, in 2022-23 and for the current year 2023-24; (d) how was this calculation (formula) arrived at, and what is the value of each of the parameters of the formula that applies to each NSO; and (e) how many complaints have been received for each quarter in English and French?
Response
Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the information requested is not available in Canadian Heritage databases or tracking systems. The data is the property of the office of the sport integrity commissioner. The questions should therefore be referred to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada’s Abuse-Free Sport program.
Question No. 1549—
Mr. Sébastien Lemire:
With regard to each of the complaints received by the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner: (a) on what date was the complaint filed; (b) which sport organization was the complaint filed; (c) how long did it take the Office of the Commissioner to render a decision; (d) what is the status of the complaint; (e) what is the name and title of the person responsible for addressing the complaint; (f) was the person in (e) a public servant or a contractor; (g) if the person in (e) is a contractor, how much did the services of this person cost and what was the hourly rate; and (h) was any paid travel required to handle this complaint?
Response
Hon. Carla Qualtrough (Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the information requested is not available in Canadian Heritage databases or tracking systems. The data is the property of the office of the sport integrity commissioner. The questions should therefore be referred to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada’s Abuse-Free Sport program.
Question No. 1550—
Mr. Blake Desjarlais:
With regard to the processing of refugee travel documents, broken down by fiscal year since 2015-16: (a) what service standards exist for the processing of refugee travel documents and for those documents identified as urgent; (b) what is the total number of applications processed; (c) of the applications in (b), how many were identified as urgent; (d) what is the current backlog of (i) normal, (ii) urgent, applications; (e) what is the total number of employees dedicated to processing (i) urgent, (ii) non-urgent, refugee travel documents; and (f) what measures does the government have in place to ensure that applications are processed in the order in which they are received?
Response
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is concerned, the response to part (a) of the question is as follows.
The service standards for the processing of refugee travel document applications from 2015-16 to 2019-20 consisted of four service levels: for applications received by mail, 20 days; for applications received in person via mail-out or pickup, 10 days; for applications submitted in person with express service request, two to nine business days as required for pickup; and for applications submitted in person with urgent service request, within two business days for pickup.
In response to parts (b) and (c) of the question, the total numbers of applications processed for each calendar year, with urgent cases in parentheses, are as follows: for 2015-16, 2,957 (249); for 2016-17, 11,773 (357); for 2017-18, 15,716 (387); for 2018-19, 17,476 (369); for 2019-20, 23,121 (701); for 2020-21, 10,364 (2); for 2021-22, 12,248 (1,067); for 2022-23, 15,567 (1,596); and for 2023-24, 2,281 (109).
In response to part (d) of the question, the backlog of applications in the certificate of identity section does not differentiate between applications for certificates of identity and refugee travel documents. The total inventory was approximately 38,300 applications as of June 6, 2023, with 29,800 considered backlog, having been received prior to February 1, 2023. The backlog was expected to be cleared by September.
The volume of urgent applications as of June 6, 2023 was 1,600. Urgent service fees are not being charged, but applications are being treated as priority for the purpose of meeting immediate needs.
With respect to part (e) of the question, the total number of passport officers for this line of business is approximately 18-20: 15 passport officers are working on urgent requests and current files that fall under the Service Fees Act; three to five passport officers are working on files from the backlog, that is, pre-February 1, 2023, files; and an additional 20 passport officers from across the department are processing applications during overtime, focusing on the backlog.
In answer to part (f) of the question, a first-in, first-out method is used unless the files are urgent. However, since the Service Fees Act came into effect, applications in the backlog and those received post February 1, 2023, are treated separately.
Question No. 1562—
Mr. Gerald Soroka:
With regard to judicial vacancies in the province of Alberta as of June 1, 2023: (a) how many vacancies are there in Alberta, broken down by level and type of court; (b) of the vacancies in (a), how long has each position been vacant for; (c) does the government have a timeline to fill each vacancy, and, if so, (i) when will all of the vacancies be filled, (ii) how many of the vacancies will be filled by the end of 2023; (d) what is the current backlog in the court's calendar, broken down by level and type of court; and (e) what is the government's reason as to why the vacancies have not yet been filled?
Response
Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to judicial vacancies in the province of Alberta as of June 1, 2023, the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada updates the data pertaining to judicial vacancies shortly after the beginning of each month. It can be found at the following link: https://www.fja.gc.ca/appointments-nominations/judges-juges-eng.aspx.
Any information regarding judicial vacancies in Alberta’s provincial courts should be sought from the Alberta Ministry of Justice.
The current vacancy number presents an incomplete picture. Despite the significant number of appointments made this year, there has been a high number of judges retiring or electing to become supernumerary. This means they have opted to work part-time, which despite their continuing to hear cases is noted as a vacancy that needs to be filled. Vacancies have also been created by elevating trial judges to an appellate court.
I will continue to make high-quality, diverse appointments, and the number of vacancies will decline. A total of 18 appointments have been made across the country since July 26, 2023. The government has also added 116 new judicial positions since 2015.
The new judicial appointment process, announced in October 2016, is showing real results for Canadians and is fostering a judiciary that reflects the rich diversity of Canadian society. For the first time, we are tracking how many new judges identify as indigenous, visible minorities, people with disabilities, members of ethnocultural groups and 2SLGBTQI+.
We have also heard from diverse bar associations and others within the legal community to reach new networks of potential candidates and encourage them to put their names forward for consideration.
Under the new process since 2016, more than half, nearly 54%, or 308 out of 569, of judges appointed or elevated by our government are women, 4% are indigenous,14% are visible minorities, 6% identify as 2SLGBTQI+ and 33% are functionally bilingual, meaning they are able to fulfil four core competencies in both official languages.
By contrast, from 2007-2015, 32%, or less than one-third of new judges appointed by the previous government were women.
Our government has appointed more than 645 judges since November 2015. These exceptional jurists represent the diversity that strengthens Canada.
We look forward to continuing to work together with the legal community to achieve a judiciary that truly looks like Canada.
Question No. 1565—
Mr. Kelly McCauley:
With regard to the April 11, 2023 announcement by the Prime Minister that Canada would send 21,000 assault rifles and 2.4 million rounds of ammunition to Ukraine: (a) what are the details of the 2.4 million rounds of ammunition, including the (i) amount of rounds by each caliber, (ii) amount being spent per round by caliber or type, (iii) names and addresses of the vendors and whether they are also the manufacturers; (b) were any of the manufacturers in (a) not Canadian, and, if so, who made this decision and what was their rationale; (c) what are the details of the 21,000 assault rifles, including the (i) manufacturer, (ii) quantity of each model and type, (iii) cost per unit, (iv) location where the rifle was manufactured; (d) if the government is paying Colt Canada a markup for any rifles or rounds of ammunition, what is the (i) manufacturer's, (ii) marked up, price; and (e) what is the total amount which will be spent on the (i) 21,000 assault rifles, (ii) 2.4 million rounds of ammunition?
Response
Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada stands firmly with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people as they fight to defend their sovereignty, freedom and independence in the face of Russia’s illegal invasion. National Defence has been unwavering in its support and will continue to supply Ukraine with the tools and equipment it needs to defend its sovereignty and security and win this war.
Since February 2022, National Defence has committed over $1.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine, including armoured vehicles, heavy artillery, body armour, gas masks, helmets, drone cameras, funding for high-resolution satellite imagery, anti-armour weapons systems, rocket launchers and small arms and ammunition, as well as other highly specialized pieces of military equipment. The announcement of April 11, 2023, of 21,000 rifles and 2.4 million rounds of ammunition, as part of a total package valued at approximately $59 million, is a further example of Canada’s steadfast support.
With the exception of items sourced directly from the Canadian Armed Forces inventory, the
Canadian Commercial Corporation is the contracting authority for equipment purchased by the Government of Canada from Canadian industry for donation to Ukraine. In regard to the current purchase, the Canadian Commercial Corporation awarded the contract for both rifles and ammunition to Colt Canada Corporation, a Canadian company.
The 21,000 rifles purchased are all variants of the Canadian Armed Forces C7/C8 platform chambered in 5.56 mm, manufactured by Colt Canada Corporation. The 2.4 million rounds of ammunition are a variety of calibres, including 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm, .308 calibre, and .50 calibre. Specific details regarding the rifles and ammunition, such as number of rounds broken down by type and by calibre or the number of rifles broken down by model, cannot be disclosed for reasons of operational security. Colt Canada Corporation was contracted to provide this ammunition but does not manufacture it. Instead, Colt Canada sourced the ammunition from its supply chain, which spans North America. The Government of Canada is not paying Colt Canada Corporation a marked-up price on either the rifles or the ammunition.
In accordance with a request from the Government of Ukraine and in order to maintain operational security for Canadian personnel and Ukrainian forces, Canada does not publicize the details of contracts related to military assistance to Ukraine.
More information about Canada’s military support to Ukraine can be found at the following link: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/campaigns/canadian-military-support-to-ukraine.html.
Question No. 1568—
Mr. Michael Kram:
With regard to the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence: on what date did the government sign a bilateral funding agreement with the Government of Saskatchewan?
Response
Hon. Marci Ien (Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, negotiations are under way with the provinces and territories, including Saskatchewan, to establish bilateral funding agreements to support the implementation of the national action plan to end gender-based violence. A bilateral funding agreement with the Government of Saskatchewan concerning the national action plan to end gender-based violence has not been signed at this time.
On February 28, 2023, I announced that a bilateral agreement had been established with the Government of Saskatchewan in the amount of $1,000,000 to support crisis hotlines across Saskatchewan. Supporting crisis hotlines is an important initiative that is part of the ongoing efforts by the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan to address gender-based violence in the province. This funding is helping crisis hotlines offer more robust services, resources and support to serve the urgent needs of all survivors of gender-based violence and their families, no matter where they live in Saskatchewan.
Question No. 1570—
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to government protection for whistleblowers: (a) what specific protection is provided for whistleblowers who publicize wrongdoing by ministers or ministerial exempt staff; and (b) what mechanisms, if any, are in place to ensure that ministers, exempt staff, or other government officials do not punish such whistleblowers?
Response
Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, public servants who disclose wrongdoing within or relating to the public sector, under either the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act or under any other act of Parliament, are protected from reprisal for having made that disclosure. They may not be fired, demoted, disciplined or subjected to any other measure that adversely affects their employment or working conditions because they have made a protected disclosure.
The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act provides that public servants may make a disclosure to their supervisor, or to the senior officer designated by the chief executive of their organization, or to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. In circumstances where there is not sufficient time to make the disclosure in one of these ways, and the disclosure is related to a serious offence under an act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, or there is an imminent risk of a substantial danger to the life, health and safety of persons or the environment, the public servant may make a protected disclosure to the public.
Under section 42.3 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, anyone who takes a reprisal against a public servant, or who directs that a reprisal be taken, commits an offence and is guilty of either an indictable offence and is liable to a fine or imprisonment, or both; or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine or imprisonment, or both.
Question No. 1571—
Mrs. Karen Vecchio:
With regard to Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and the Mission Cultural Fund: (a) (i) why, (ii) on what day, did the program cease operations; (b) did the government conduct any study on the effectiveness of the program, and, if so, what are the details, including, (i) who conducted it, (ii) when it was completed, (iii) what the findings were; (c) is there any other program or proposed program at GAC that will provide funding for celebrity chefs' airfares or the telling of seniors' sex stories abroad, and, if so, what are the details of the replacement program?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to part (a) of the question, as scheduled, the mission cultural fund, or MCF, sunsetted on March 31, 2023, and ceased activities.
Regarding part (b), a departmental evaluation of the MCF was conducted in 2020 by the diplomacy, trade and corporate evaluation division of Global Affairs Canada. The evaluation is publicly accessible on the departmental website at https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/publications/evaluation/2020/mcf-fcm-final-evaluation.aspx?lang=eng.
With regard to part (c), there is no replacement program or proposed program to replace the MCF.
Question No. 1572—
Mr. Eric Melillo:
With regard to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and shrinkflation: (a) will the government be lowering the size or volume threshold for items which are subject to GST when they are under a certain level (e.g., 500 ml of ice cream); (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) on what items will the threshold be lowered, (ii) what will be the new threshold, (iii) when will the new threshold take effect; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative or unconfirmed, how much additional GST revenue is the government expected to receive as a result of shrinkflation, and what will the additional revenue be used for?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at this time, there are no plans to change the existing, long-standing size thresholds used in respect of basic groceries and snack foods.
Under the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax, or GST/HST, suppliers of goods and services in Canada report and remit the total amount of GST/HST collected on their taxable supplies to the Canada Revenue Agency. Neither the Canada Revenue Agency nor the Department of Finance Canada collect data on the GST/HST collected, or not collected, on types of specific goods and services, by particular methods of sale or by types of packaging. The Department of Finance does not have any public estimates that it is able to share on the potential amount of additional tax revenue from changes in the packaging or size of basic groceries.
When the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax, or GST/HST, was introduced, it was determined that basic groceries should be zero-rated or fully relieved of tax, reflecting a widely held view of Canadians that staple grocery items should not be taxed. Accordingly, under the GST/HST sales of many beverage and food items for human consumption are tax-relieved, including fruits and vegetables, eggs, breakfast cereals, most milk products, and fresh meat, poultry and fish.
The Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for the administration of the GST/HST system, including the determination of the tax status of specific food and beverage items.
Question No. 1575—
Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to applications submitted to the Universal Broadband Fund program that have not been selected for funding within Hamilton, Ontario: (a) how many applications have not been selected for funding for projects located within Hamilton, Ontario; (b) what are the names of the interested parties whose applications have not been selected for funding; (c) what is the location within Hamilton of projects whose applications have not been selected for funding; and (d) what is the amount of funding requested by each interested party that have not been selected for funding?
Response
Hon. Gudie Hutchings (Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there were 17 applications submitted to the universal broadband fund program that have not been selected for funding within Hamilton, Ontario.
In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Therefore, information regarding applications that are under review, withdrawn or rejected is being withheld on the grounds that the information may constitute third party information.
Question No. 1576—
Mr. Dan Muys:
With regard to applications submitted to the Universal Broadband Fund program that have not been selected for funding: what (i) are the names of interested parties, (ii) are the locations of the projects, (iii) is the amount of funding requested for each project?
Response
Hon. Gudie Hutchings (Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there have been applications submitted to the universal broadband fund program that have not been selected for funding in all provinces and territories except for the Yukon.
In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Therefore, information regarding applications that are under review, withdrawn or rejected is being withheld on the grounds that the information may constitute third party information.
Question No. 1580—
Mr. Rick Perkins:
With regard to statistics recorded by Health Canada pertaining to its Medical Assistance in Dying Program (MAID), since June 2016: (a) how many veterans have made a request for MAID, broken down by year; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by province or territory; (c) what is the median age of veterans who have requested MAID, broken down by year; (d) of the requests in (a), how many were (i) granted, (ii) denied; and (e) what is the median age of veterans whose request for MAID were (i) granted, (ii) denied?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada supports Health Canada by collecting data related to the medical assistance in dying program, MAID. Aggregate statistics on the state of MAID in Canada are published annually by Health Canada. The “Third annual report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2021” is available on the Health Canada website at https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/health-system-services/annual-report-medical-assistance-dying-2021.html. However, Statistics Canada does not specifically collect or record data pertaining to veterans and their use of the program.
Question No. 1581—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to the government's plan to increase the mandatory security fees at airports by 33 percent: (a) will the fee increase lead to faster security screening for passengers, and, if so, by how many minutes on average will passenger wait times decrease; and (b) what methodology was used to determine and quantify the decrease in the average wait time?
Response
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the air travellers security charge came into effect in April 2002 to fund the air travel security system, including the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, which is the federal authority responsible for the security screening of air passengers and their baggage. Also included in the air travel security system are Transport Canada’s related regulatory oversight and the contracting of Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers on selected flights. The air travellers security charge is generally paid by passengers when they purchase airline tickets. The Government of Canada has committed to balancing air travellers security charge revenues with air travel security system expenses over time.
Budget 2023 proposed to provide $1.8 billion over five years, starting in 2023-24, to maintain and increase the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority’s level of service, improve screening wait times, and strengthen security measures at airports. To support financing of this proposal, budget 2023 proposes to increase air travellers security charge rates by 32.85%. The air travellers security charge rates were last increased in 2010, at which time they were raised by 52.4%.
The cost of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority’s operations has grown along with traffic volumes over the past 12 years, whereas its annual, fixed appropriations have not. As a result, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority has been receiving annual top-ups to help it meet increased volumes. The vast majority of the incremental revenues generated by the air travellers security charge increase will go toward a three-year top-up versus the historical one-year. A portion of the incremental revenue will be used to improve wait times. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority’s current wait time target is based on meeting a service level where on average 85% of all passengers wait less than 15 minutes to be screened at Canada’s top eight airports on an annual basis. This means that longer wait times may occur during peak periods, when checkpoints experience higher traffic volumes. Details on the proposed changes to wait times are being worked out with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
Question No. 1583—
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to media reports that Canadian soldiers in Latvia have had to purchase their own modern ballistic helmets equipped with built-in hearing protection: (a) why was such equipment not provided by the government to all Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) soldiers serving in Latvia; (b) will the soldiers who had to purchase these helmets with their own funds be reimbursed; and (c) what is the timeline for when these helmets, or ones of a similar quality, will be provided to all CAF soldiers participating in theatre or live fire exercises?
Response
Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, ensuring that our soldiers are equipped with modern and effective equipment is a top priority for National Defence. This includes safe, modern ballistic helmets.
The following is a response to parts (a), (b) and (c).
All members of the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, are provided with the required operational equipment, whether serving at home or abroad.
When deploying, CAF members are provided with an authorized list of clothing and equipment specific to that mission. The operational headquarters, in collaboration with the task force and supported by the respective technical and functional authorities, creates and amends this list as required. Prior to their deployment, all CAF members are provided the clothing and equipment on this list, should they not already have it. For those deployed to Latvia, this would include a helmet.
Per CAF policy, the unauthorized procurement and use of weapons, personal protective equipment, and clothing is not allowed in any form.
As such, no CAF member deployed to Latvia was forced to purchase their own helmet for safety or operational reasons. Should a member buy their own equipment, it is based on their preference, and it is not due to shortages. Members are not reimbursed in such cases.
Question No. 1587—
Mr. Fraser Tolmie:
With regard to delays in the reimbursement of meal expenses for Canadian Armed Forces members serving in Poland: (a) what was the total number and total value of meal expense reimbursements (i) requested between January 1 and June 1, 2023, (ii) issued as of June 7, 2023; (b) what was the average number of days between when the reimbursement was requested and when the payment was issued; (c) what are the reasons why reimbursements were delayed; and (d) on what date were or will each of the reasons in (c) be rectified?
Response
Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the sustainment and support of deployed troops is always a top Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, priority. This includes ensuring the provision of food for our members, no matter where they are deployed around the world.
With regard to (a)(i)(ii), (c) and (d), over the past year, Canada has rapidly expanded Operation Unifier with a focus on providing immediate training support to Ukraine as it fights for its sovereignty and security. In most cases, the CAF provides food for its members through CAF military cooks or those of our allies. However, given the geographically dispersed nature of the training cadres, this was not logistically feasible for most training locations in Poland. In such cases, members were authorized to receive a per diem in line with Treasury Board policies. This resulted in an unprecedented number of claims submitted.
To address this issue, the Department of National Defence extended the deployment duration of administrative personnel who volunteered to stay and support the mission. Their efforts, along with those of newly deployed personnel in March 2023, cleared the backlog.
Between January 1 and June 1 of 2023, 316 meal allowance claims were submitted for reimbursement by soldiers deployed to Poland on Operation Unifier for a total value of $683,076. As of June 7, 2023, 290 of these claims had been settled for a total value of $569,780.
All claims have since been settled, with the last from this period paid out on June 24, 2023.
With regard to (b), in March 2023, the average time between meal allowance claim submission and payout was four to six weeks. Since then, the payout time for these claims has steadily reduced, such that the current average is now two to three weeks.
Finally, the CAF has also since expanded the number of administrative staff positions for future deployments to ensure this situation does not reoccur.
Question No. 1588—
Mr. Fraser Tolmie:
With regard to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members having to purchase their own equipment in the last two years: (a) how many instances is the CAF aware of that were a result of shortages in what the CAF provides to its members; (b) what is the estimated value of the purchases in (a); (c) what are the details of all such purchases that were eventually reimbursed by the government, including, for each, the (i) item description and quantity, (ii) amount of reimbursement, (iii) month of purchase, (iv) month of reimbursement; (d) what measures were taken by the CAF to ensure that members serving abroad had all of the equipment needed prior to their arrival abroad; and (e) were there any instances where CAF members arrived in a country without being equipped with all of the necessary equipment, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, the (i) country, (ii) number of CAF members impacted, (iii) details of what was not provided, (iv) date members arrived, (v) status of whether the equipment has since been provided, (vi) reason the equipment or gear was not provided?
Response
Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, ensuring that our soldiers are equipped with modern and effective equipment is a top priority for the Department of National Defence.
With regard to (a), (b) and (c), all members of the Canadian Armed Forces, CAF, are provided with the required operational equipment, whether serving at home or abroad. Should a member buy their own equipment, it is based on their preference and is not due to shortages. Members are not reimbursed in such cases, and details regarding equipment purchased by members are not centrally tracked. When deploying, CAF members are provided with an authorized list of clothing and equipment specific to that mission. The operational headquarters, in collaboration with the task force, and supported by the respective technical and functional authorities, creates and amends this list as required. Prior to their deployment, all CAF members are provided the clothing and equipment on this list, should they not already have it.
Per CAF policy, the unauthorized procurement and use of weapons, personal protective equipment and clothing is not allowed in any form.
If a shortage does occur, the technical authority responsible for the equipment will either allow the concerned unit to purchase what is missing, using a short list of pre-approved items, or initiate an emergency procurement to ensure that no deployed and/or deploying member of the CAF is without proper operational equipment.
In November 2022, the Operation Unifier training element, based in the United Kingdom, identified a deficiency with the CAF-issued wet weather clothing. In December 2022, deployed members were authorized to procure suitable wet weather clothing from an approved list. To date, approximately 400 CAF members deployed over three rotations from August 2022 to January 2024 have received this authorization.
Question No. 1597—
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the Canada Border Services Agency: what is the spending by governmental and non-governmental organizations on settlement services for people (immigrants, refugees, asylum claimants and other individuals) who have entered Canada at official and irregular border crossings, broken down by the (i) organization, (ii) fiscal year, since 2015-16, (iii) projected spending for the 2023-24 fiscal year, (iv) province and territory, (v) program spending?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the CBSA has not incurred any spending on settlement services for immigrants, refugees, asylum claimants and other individuals in the indicated time frame.
Question No. 1602—
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to Canada’s trade relationship with China, the Tibetan Autonomous Region’s (TAR) recent GDP growth in the first quarter of 2023, and the general economic forecast of the region: (a) what role do Canada’s trade offices in China, the consulates and embassies that offer Trade Commissioner Services, or the embassy in Beijing, play in the relationships between Chinese and Canadian companies; (b) is there a guide, guidelines, model or other document that outlines what Canada considers as good governance and best practices, used in Canada’s trade, and, if so, have there been instances where good governance and best practices were found to be in violation of or against the spirit of the guide, guidelines, model or outline; (c) since 2020, has there been an increase in interest or communications at Canada’s trade offices in China from companies about exporting or importing goods or conducting business in the TAR, and, if so, from which companies; (d) are there plans for Canada to open a trade office in Lhasa, TAR, and, if not, under what circumstances would Canada make such plans; (e) have Canada’s trade offices in China promoted trade in the TAR; and (f) did Canada attend the one-day Tibet Development Forum held in Beijing on May 23, 2023, and, if so, (i) what was the program of the forum, (ii) what events did Canada attend, (iii) did Canada speak or raise questions at the forum, and, if so, what was said by Canada and who were the guests present?
Response
Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to (a), Canada’s Trade Commissioner Service, TCS, helps Canadian businesses grow with confidence by connecting them with our funding and support programs, international opportunities, and our network of trade commissioners in over 160 cities worldwide, including with our network in greater China, including Canada’s embassy in Beijing, its consulates in Shanghai, Guangzhou and Chongqing and its trade offices across 10 secondary markets. The TCS helps companies find key local players that have the knowledge needed for clients to refine and carry out their international strategy. This may include connecting Canadian companies with potential local Chinese business partners.
With regard to (b), the Government of Canada expects Canadian companies active abroad to abide by all relevant laws, to respect human rights in their operations and to adopt best practices and internationally respected guidelines on responsible business conduct, such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. In support of these objectives, Canada’s responsible business conduct, or RBC, strategy – “Responsible Business Conduct Abroad: Canada’s Strategy for the Future”-- was launched in 2022. This five-year strategy, 2022-2027, sets out priorities for the Government of Canada, through the TCS and partners, to provide guidance and tools in order to support Canadian companies to uphold Canada’s RBC expectations. The TCS provides advice to Canadian companies to identify and mitigate risks and to strengthen their responsible business conduct practices. If there is a legitimate concern and there is credible information of a Canadian company’s misconduct or wrongdoing abroad, the TCS can withhold all services and support from the company.
With regard to (c), available records show no such interest or inquiries to Canada’s trade offices.
With regard to (d), there are no plans for Canada to open a trade office in Lhasa in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, TAR. Canada makes plans to open trade offices in a given location based on market potential for Canadian clients and based on broader international commercial strategies. The 10 trade offices currently operating in China were established when two separate Canadian strategies were executed. The first six offices were established under Canada’s global commerce strategy in 2007, while the final four were added as part of the Global markets action plan in 2013.
With regard to (e), Canada’s trade offices in China have not promoted trade in the TAR. The current trade offices do not deal with any matters related to the TAR.
With regard to (f), Canada did not attend the event.
Question No. 1603—
Mr. Randall Garrison:
With regard to Canada’s trade relationship with China and the activities of Canadian companies involved in development projects in China, specifically those that have been involved with mining, hydroelectricity, and rail, including, but not limited to, Bombardier Inc., SNC Lavalin, Nortel, Eldorado Gold Corp., Power Corp., RailPartners, Continental Minerals, GobiMin, MinCo Capital Corp., Sterling Group, Inter-Citic Minerals, Tri-River Ventures, China Gold International Resources, and Roctest LTD between 2000 and 2020 in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan areas in Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan, and Yunnan: (a) has Canada ever facilitated contact or participated in the meetings between Chinese companies and Canadian companies involved with development projects, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, (i) who participated, (ii) on which dates, (iii) at what locations; (b) has Canada ever provided funding for development projects in the TAR and Tibetan areas, such as those in Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan, and Yunnan, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each, (i) for which projects, (ii) the amounts, (iii) the source of these funds; (c) was there a guide, guidelines, model, or other document that outlines what the government considered as good corporate governance and best practices for Canadian companies operating in the TAR and Tibetan areas of China; (d) what mechanisms exist in the case where there are complaints as a result of violations on the part of Canadian companies of the policies, norms or official guidelines delineated in (c); and (e) if such mechanisms exist, (i) what complaints have been made, (ii) how were these complaints addressed?
Response
Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the following reflects a consolidated response approved on behalf of Global Affairs Canada ministers.
With regard to part (a), based on available records, Canada has not facilitated any such meetings between Canadian and Chinese companies involved in development projects.
With regard to part (b), Global Affairs Canada does not disaggregate the geographic scope of international assistance projects beyond the country level. Therefore, data specific to development projects in the Tibetan Autonomous Region or the other Tibetan areas referenced are not available. Canada’s bilateral aid program to China expired in 2013.
With regard to part (c), Canada’s responsible business conduct expectations, including Canada’s Responsible Business Conduct Strategy, applies to all Canadian companies active abroad, regardless of the region in which they operate.
With regard to part (d), the Government of Canada provides two non-judicial dispute-resolution mechanisms: Canada’s National Contact Point, or NCP, for Responsible Business Conduct and the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise, or CORE. Canada’s NCP has a mandate to facilitate dialogue/mediation to help resolves issues raised about the observance of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, or the Guidelines, by multinational enterprises operating in or from Canada, in any economic sectors. The NCP can receive complaints related to any of the areas covered in the eleven chapters of the Guidelines, including those dealing with human rights, employment and industrial relations, and the environment. Outcomes of the NCP process can include agreement on remedy, changes to company policy, as well as relationship-building between companies and communities where they operate.
The CORE has a mandate to review allegations of human rights abuses arising from the operations of Canadian companies abroad in the mining, oil and gas, and garment sectors. The CORE can undertake a review on its own initiative or in response to a complaint received, offer informal mediation services, and issue recommendations at the end of a review. The CORE is required to report publicly throughout the process. The office of the CORE began accepting complaints on March 15, 2021. The Government of Canada expects Canadian companies involved in a dispute-resolution process to participate in good faith. If a Canadian company fails to act in good faith during a review or follow-up process, recommendations can be made to implement trade measures such as the withdrawal of Trade Commissioner Service support, and recommending that Export Development Canada and the Canadian Commercial Corporation withdraw future support.
With regard to part (e), Canada’s NCP has closed 25 cases since 2000. The NCP publishes a Final Statement at the conclusion of each case. These Final Statements, as well as other information on past NCP cases, can be found on the NCP’s website. The CORE publishes a quarterly report on complaints received and is required to publish reports on its reviews. CORE publications are available on the CORE’s website.
Question No. 1605—
Mr. Michael Barrett:
With regard to Order in Council 2023-0524 dated June 1, 2023: (a) who is named in Schedule A; and (b) what offences and convictions were listed in Schedule B?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, or RPM, also known as clemency, is the discretionary power of the Crown to grant pardons, remit sentences, and exercise other forms of clemency. Clemency can be exercised either by the Governor in Council under sections 748 and 748.1 of the Criminal Code, or by the Governor General under the Letters Patent, which is the document that bestows power to the Governor General. In practice, the granting of an act of clemency by the Governor in Council or by the Governor General will occur only after receiving the advice of a Minister of the Crown. In most cases, it is the Minister of Public Safety who makes the recommendation.
As outlined in the Order in Council 2023-0524, the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety, ordered the remission of all outstanding fines and a conditional pardon to the person named in Schedule A. A conditional pardon can be ordered prior to eligibility, or due to ineligibility, under the Criminal Records Act, or prior to eligibility under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or CCRA. There are criteria that must be met in order for a conditional pardon to be granted, including the aforementioned evidence of substantial injustice or undue hardship.
In the case of clemency pardons under the RPM, there is no framework for disclosure because the over-riding principle and convention has been to guard the privacy of the individual in receipt of clemency, other than the notification in the Canada Gazette concerning the fact of the pardon or remission of fines.
As such, the request to disclose the name listed in Schedule A and offences including convictions listed in Schedule B for Order in Council 2023-0524, cannot be fulfilled.
Clemency is granted in exceptional circumstances in deserving cases involving federal offences, where no other remedy exists in law to reduce severe negative effects of criminal sanctions. Clemency can be requested for numerous reasons, including employment, perceived inequity, medical conditions, immigration to Canada, compassion and financial hardship.
The Parole Board of Canada, or PBC, reviews applications, conducts investigations at the direction of the Minister of Public Safety, and makes recommendations to the Minister regarding whether to grant the clemency request.
There are several guiding principles regarding the exercise of clemency which are assessed and reviewed by the PBC in accordance with section 110 of the CCRA: there is evidence of substantial injustice or undue hardship that exceed the normal consequences of a conviction and sentence; the application is examined on its own merit, taking into consideration the circumstances solely of the applicant; the applicant has exhausted all other avenues available under the Criminal Code or other pertinent legislation; the independence of the judiciary shall be respected; and the RPM does not result in an increased penalty.
Question No. 1607—
Mr. Ziad Aboultaif:
With regard to revenue collected by the government from the federal carbon tax: (a) does the revenue collected go into the government's general revenue fund or a separate fund; (b) if the revenue goes into a separate fund, what are the details, including the name and balance of such a fund; and (c) how much revenue did the government collect from the carbon tax in the 2022-23 fiscal year, in total and broken down by province?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all proceeds collected from the federal fuel charge go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, or GGPPA, all proceeds from the federal fuel charge assessed must also be returned from this Fund back to the jurisdiction of origin.
Pursuant to section 270 of the GGPPA, the Minister of the Environment must table a report in Parliament annually with respect to the administration of the act, which includes details of proceeds assessed and how they were returned.
The most recent annual report was tabled in March 2023, in respect of a pollution price of $40 during the 2021 22 fuel charge year. For reference, that report is published here: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/greenhouse-gas-annual-report-2021.html.
Detailed information in respect of the 2022 23 fuel charge year will be available in the next annual report, which is required to be tabled by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change by the end of the current fiscal year. Note that these data have yet to be fully assessed and audited as part of the 2022 23 year end Public Accounts process.
In provinces where the fuel charge applies, the majority of proceeds are returned to households through climate action incentive, or CAI, payments while the balance of proceeds is to be returned to small and medium sized businesses and Indigenous groups. Proceeds relating specifically to the use of natural gas and propane by farmers are returned directly to farmers via a refundable tax credit.
Over time, any difference between proceeds assessed and disbursed in each jurisdiction is corrected through adjustments to future CAI payment amounts, such that all proceeds are returned to the jurisdiction of origin. These differences are reported upon in the annual reports.
Question No. 1612—
Mr. Taylor Bachrach:
With regard to VIA Rail’s passenger service: what was the operating revenue and the operating costs for each year between 2018 and 2022 for (i) the Toronto—Québec City corridor, (ii) each VIA Rail passenger service route outside of the Toronto—Québec City corridor?
Response
Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail Canada's operating revenue and costs for each service route are reported in the annual reports available at https://media.viarail.ca/en/reports#annual-reports. For fiscal year 2018, this is available in Annual Report 2018 on page 9; for fiscal year 2019, in Annual Report 2019 on page 9; for fiscal year 2020, in Annual Report 2020, section 4, on pages 3-4; for fiscal year 2021, in Annual Report 2021 on page 14; and for fiscal year 2022, in Annual Report 2022 on page 18.
Question No. 1614—
Ms. Laurel Collins:
With regard to the government’s Carbon Management Strategy: what are the details of all consultative bodies formed by the government, including the (i) name of the consultative body, (ii) names of individuals or organizations included, (iii) government officials and ministers involved, (iv) dates of each meeting held, (v) reports or recommendations put forward by the consultative body?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, reducing emissions remains the top priority of Canada’s climate plan, recognizing that the best way to tackle climate change is to stop new emissions from entering the atmosphere. Carbon management technologies will be a critical tool for heavy industry sectors to reduce their emissions and permanently remove existing historical emissions from the atmosphere. Carbon management is one of many innovative technology areas helping to advance climate action in support of Canada’s net-zero targets.
The name of the consultative body formed in spring 2021 by the government to provide strategic advice and input to the Carbon Management Strategy, previously called the Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage, or CCUS, Strategy, was the CCUS Thought Leaders’ Senior Reference Group.
The group was comprised of thought leaders external to the federal and provincial governments selected because of their knowledge of carbon management technologies and their use or development in the Canadian context or their ongoing leadership in fields relevant to carbon management technology development and deployment. These leaders were expected to bring the sum of their relevant experience to the group, rather than representing one single organization. The senior reference group’s various perspectives were captured at these three meetings but were not compiled into formal reports nor were there formal consensus recommendations.
The individuals included in the CCUS Thought Leaders’ senior reference group were Ed Whittingham, Clean Energy Consultant and former Executive Director, Pembina Institute, and a fellow at the Public Policy Forum; Marcius Extavour, Executive Director of the NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE; Maria Nsouli, Vice President, Impact Investment Fund at BMO; Sandra Odendahl, Vice President, Social Impact & Sustainability at Scotiabank; Robert Niven, Chief Executive Officer of CarbonCure; Anna Stukas, Vice President, Business Development at Carbon Engineering; Claude Letourneau, Chief Executive Officer of Svante; Adam Auer, Vice President, Environment and Sustainability at the Cement Association of Canada; Tim Wiwchar, General Manager of Carbon Capture and Storage in Canada at Shell Canada; Beth Hardy Valiaho, Vice President, Strategy & Stakeholder Relations at the International CCS Knowledge Centre; Richard Chalaturnyk of the University of Alberta; Jeff Pearson, President of Wolf Carbon; and Chris Grant, Vice President, Regional Development at Suncor.
The senior reference group was convened by Drew Leyburne, Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy Efficiency and Technology Sector at Natural Resources Canada to meet on three occasions in 2021: on April 14, June 3, and July 13, 2021.
Question No. 1617—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the government’s thought-leaders senior reference group referred to in a February 2022 briefing note prepared for Natural Resources Canada deputy minister John Hannaford: (a) what were the criteria for selecting members of this group; (b) what is the membership of this group, including the names of individuals and organizations represented; (c) what are the details of all former members of this group, including the names of individuals and organizations represented; (d) what are the details of all meetings held by this group, including (i) the date of the meetings, (ii) the minister and government officials in attendance, (iii) whether minutes of the meetings were recorded; (e) what recommendations did the group make regarding the government’s Carbon Management Strategy; and (f) what are the details of all reports, including draft reports, prepared by this group, including the (i) date they were prepared, (ii) recommendations included, and (iii) recipients of the reports?
Response
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, reducing emissions remains the top priority of Canada’s climate plan, recognizing that the best way to tackle climate change is to stop new emissions from entering the atmosphere. Carbon management technologies will be a critical tool for heavy industry sectors to reduce their emissions and permanently remove existing historical emissions from the atmosphere. Carbon management is one of many innovative technology areas helping to advance climate action in support of Canada’s net-zero targets.
The name of the consultative body formed in spring 2021 by the government to provide strategic advice and input to the Carbon Management Strategy, previously called the Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage, or CCUS, Strategy, was the CCUS Thought Leaders’ Senior Reference Group.
The group was comprised of thought leaders external to the federal and provincial governments selected because of their knowledge of carbon management technologies and their use or development in the Canadian context or their ongoing leadership in fields relevant to carbon management technology development and deployment. These leaders were expected to bring the sum of their relevant experience to the group, rather than representing one single organization. The senior reference group’s various perspectives were captured at these three meetings but were not compiled into formal reports nor were there formal consensus recommendations.
The individuals included in the CCUS Thought Leaders’ senior reference group were Ed Whittingham, Clean Energy Consultant and former Executive Director, Pembina Institute, and a fellow at the Public Policy Forum; Marcius Extavour, Executive Director of the NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE; Maria Nsouli, Vice President, Impact Investment Fund at BMO; Sandra Odendahl, Vice President, Social Impact & Sustainability at Scotiabank; Robert Niven, Chief Executive Officer of CarbonCure; Anna Stukas, Vice President, Business Development at Carbon Engineering; Claude Letourneau, Chief Executive Officer of Svante; Adam Auer, Vice President, Environment and Sustainability at the Cement Association of Canada; Tim Wiwchar, General Manager of Carbon Capture and Storage in Canada at Shell Canada; Beth Hardy Valiaho, Vice President, Strategy & Stakeholder Relations at the International CCS Knowledge Centre; Richard Chalaturnyk of the University of Alberta; Jeff Pearson, President of Wolf Carbon; and Chris Grant, Vice President, Regional Development at Suncor.
The senior reference group was convened by Drew Leyburne, Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy Efficiency and Technology Sector at Natural Resources Canada to meet on three occasions in 2021: on April 14, June 3, and July 13, 2021.
Question No. 1618—
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the handling of cases and claims pursuant to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement by the Department of Justice Canada, Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: how much has been spent on settled cases, request for direction, and other proceedings where Canada has been either the plaintiff or defendant before the appellate courts (such as the Ontario Superior Court or the Supreme Court of British Columbia), related to survivors of St. Anne’s Residential School between 2013, and June 1, 2023 (i) in total, (ii) broken down by year?
Response
Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the expenditures incurred between 2013 and June 1, 2023, in legal proceedings pursuant to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement related to survivors of St. Anne's Residential School, to the extent that the information that has been requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege or settlement privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.
The total actual and notional legal costs associated with legal proceedings pursuant to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement related to survivors of St. Anne's Residential School, for the period of January 1, 2013, to May 9, 2018, was provided in response to an earlier question and amount to approximatively $2,314,000. The total legal costs for the subsequent period, from May 10, 2018, to June 1, 2023, amount to approximatively $1,939,200. These costs cover all types of court proceedings, including actions, requests for direction, motions, costs proceedings and appeals. In most of these files, the Crown did not initiate the proceedings but rather acted as a defendant or respondent. The total legal costs are with respect to litigation and litigation support services, which were provided, in these cases, by the Department of Justice. Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved internal legal services hourly rates. Actual costs are composed of file related legal disbursements paid by the Department and then cost-recovered from the client-departments or agencies, as well as the costs of legal agents who may be retained by the Minister of Justice to provide litigation services in certain cases.
The total amount mentioned in this response is based on information contained in Department of Justice systems, as of July 5, 2023.
Question No. 1619—
Mr. Tony Baldinelli:
With regard to memorandums and briefing notes sent to the Minister of Public Safety or the minister’s office concerning prisoner transfers since January 1, 2019, about prisoner transfers or potential prisoner transfers: what are the details of all such documents, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) type of document, (vi) subject matter, (vii) summary of contents, (viii) file number?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since January 1, 2019, the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister’s office has not received any memorandums or briefing notes from Public Safety branches concerning prisoner transfers.
The Correctional Service of Canada has a process in place to provide advanced notification to the Minister’s office about transfers involving high profile offenders. While this can include verbal briefings, often notifications are sent via email. Dating back to January 1, 2019, 39 transfer notifications have been issued to the office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the office of the Minister of Public Safety.
Typically, the titles of these email briefings and the contents of the email contain identifiable information, such as the name of an offender or the name of the receiving institution, and is therefore protected information under the Privacy Act.
Question No. 1623—
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to the $3.7 million in budget 2022 allocated for the implementation of a Mental Health Fund for Black federal public servants: (a) how much of the funding allocated for fiscal year 2022-23 remains unspent; (b) how many full-time equivalent employees are working on the implementation of the fund; (c) what tools and programs have been created since the implementation began; (d) how many employees have accessed support through the fund; and (e) what are the details of all reports or briefings regarding the status of ongoing initiatives through this funding, including the (i) title of the report, (ii) author, (iii) target audience, (iv) recommendations or conclusions arrived at?
Response
Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is working to create a diverse and inclusive public service, free from racism, harassment and discrimination, where everyone has a sense of belonging. Budget 2022 proposed $3.7 million over four years, and Budget 2023 proposed to provide a further $45.9 million over three years, starting in 2023-24, to the Treasury Board Secretariat to create a Mental Health Fund for Black public servants and establish dedicated career development programs, including to prepare Black public service leaders for executive positions.
With regard to (a), Budget 2022 committed $3.7 million over four years for a Black-led engagement, design, and implementation of a Mental Health Fund for Black federal public servants. In 2022-23, the Treasury Board Secretariat accessed $1.1 million of the $3.7 million and will access the remaining $2.6 million starting in 2023-24. Of the $1.1 million that was accessed, $787,207 was spent.
With regard to (b), during the first phase of work, the Treasury Board Secretariat focused on developing an action plan for Black employees in the public service, working with Black employee networks. The Treasury Board Secretariat hired several Black employees on temporary assignments from several departments on secondment to develop and design proposals for a mental health fund for Black employees and dedicated career development programs. This included hiring 5.5 full-time equivalents using the $1.1 million from Budget 2022. That work resulted in new Budget 2023 commitments. A total of 5.5 full-time equivalents, or 11 employees, were hired in 2022 to accomplish this work. When the work was done, the secondments were ended, and the employees returned to their organizations.
With regard to (c), the second phase of work is underway to meet the Budget commitments and it will build on the foundational work started in phase one, including taking stock of existing programs, consultations with employee and subject matter experts. A dedicated team will be established to design, develop and implement programs that support the mental health and career development of Black public servants. The Treasury Board Secretariat plans to re-engage with Black employee networks and more broadly, consult Black employees in the public service to ensure that the initiatives developed will respond to their needs. The Treasury Board Secretariat is also working with partners, such as Health Canada, which delivers the Employee Assistance Program, and the Canada School of Public Service, which offers a suite of leadership development programming for leaders at all levels. We will build upon what exists and develop new programming to meet the needs of Black employees. Experts from the Black community will be engaged throughout this process.
With regard to (d), Budget 2022 committed $3.7 million over four years to support the Black-led engagement, design, and implementation phase of the Mental Health Fund. The funding was not intended to provide direct support to public servants. The work completed in 2022-2023 led to the Budget 2023 commitment of $45.9 million over three years, starting in 2023-24. This funding will provide direct support to employees for mental health and career development.
With regard to (e), following Parliament’s approval of Budget 2023, the Treasury Board Secretariat began the work to deliver on the Budget 2023 commitment. More information on the Mental Health Fund initiatives will be made available once they are designed and launched.
Question No. 1624—
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to the handling of cases and claims pursuant to the Black Class Action Lawsuit launched in December 2020: how much has been spent by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General in legal fees and court fees in their requests to dismiss the lawsuit?
Response
Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice undertook a preliminary search to determine what information would fall within the scope of the question and the time that would be required to prepare a comprehensive response. Producing and validating a response to this question would require a manual collection and careful analysis of individual transactions that is not possible in the time allotted, and which cannot be completed with the precision and detail necessary to ensure a complete and accurate response.
Although it is not possible to provide a response to the specific question posed, the Department of Justice can provide a summary of the total legal costs to respond to this class action, which includes but is not limited to legal services to support the preservation of records covering 99 departments and agencies, the motion for certification, the motion to strike, examinations, as well as various other steps required of Canada in the context of the litigation. To the extent that the information is, or may be, protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.
The total actual and notional legal costs associated with the Black Class Action, the Thompson lawsuit, amount to approximately $7.85 million. This amount covers the costs associated with all aspects of the litigation. The services targeted here are litigation services as well as litigation support services. Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved internal legal services hourly rates. Actual costs represent file related legal disbursements and legal agent fees, as the case may be. The total amount mentioned in this response is based on information contained in Department of Justice systems, as of July 5, 2023.
Question No. 1625—
Mr. Arnold Viersen:
With regard to statistics recorded by Health Canada pertaining to its Medical Assistance in Dying Program (MAID), for the year 2022: (a) how many Canadians have made a request for MAID, broken down by those for whom natural death is reasonably foreseeable and those for whom natural death is not reasonably foreseeable; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by province or territory; (c) what is the breakdown by age of those who have requested MAID; (d) of the requests in (a), how many were (i) granted, (ii) denied; and (e) what is the breakdown by age of those whose request for MAID were (i) granted, (ii) denied?
Response
Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, data for the year 2022 will become available in fall 2023 and can be provided upon request at that time. In the meantime, we are pleased to present data for 2021 below. More information can be found in the “Third Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying”.
In response to (a), there were 12,286 written requests for medical assistance in dying, or MAID, in 2021. Of the total number of MAID provisions, or 10,064 individuals, 2.2%, or 219 individuals, were individuals whose natural deaths were not reasonably foreseeable, or non-RFND, with the remainder of provisions, or 9,845 individuals, or 97.8%, being individuals whose deaths were reasonably foreseeable. Data does not support the calculation of the number of requests not ending in a MAID provision by RFND vs non-RFND status.
In response to (b), the breakdown of MAID requests and outcomes by jurisdiction is provided in Table 7.1 from the “Third Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying”. Due to small numbers, some data have been suppressed to protect confidentiality. The majority of written requests, or 9,950 requests, or 81%, resulted in the administration of MAID based on reports received. The remaining 2,336 requests, or 19%, resulted in an outcome other than MAID: 231 individuals withdrew their request, or 1.9% of written requests; 487 individuals were deemed ineligible, or 4% of written requests; and 1,618 individuals died prior to receiving MAID, or 13.2% of written requests. These details are found in Annex A of the report.
In response to (c), the average age at the time MAID was provided in 2021 was 76.3. The breakdown by age of individuals who received MAID is as follows: 139 individuals aged 18 to 45, 353 aged 46 to 55, 1,165 aged 56 to 64, 1,462 aged 65 to 70, 1,572 aged 71 to 75, 1,621 aged 76 to 80, 1,364 aged 81 to 85, 1,200 aged 86 to 90, and 1,074 aged 91 or older.
The average age for outcomes not ending in MAID is 76.5 for ineligible cases, 75.4 for cases that were withdrawn, and 73.7 for patients who died. The data does not support the calculation of the age range of individuals who did not receive MAID.
In response to (d), and as per the response in answer (b) above and in Table 7.1 from the “Third Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying”, of the 12,286 written requests for MAID in 2021, 9,950, or 81%, resulted in the administration of MAID based on reports received, and 487 individuals were deemed ineligible, or 4% of written requests. In addition to these 487 individuals, of the 2,336 requests, or 19%, that resulted in an outcome other than MAID, 231 individuals withdrew their request, or 1.9% of written requests, and 1,618 individuals died prior to receiving MAID, or 13.2% of written requests.
In response to (e), the breakdown by age of individuals who received MAID is provided in part (c). The data does not support the calculation of the age range of individuals who did not receive MAID.
Question No. 1630—
Ms. Heather McPherson:
With regard to funding from FinDev Canada for CASEIF IV, a regional private equity fund managed by LaFise Group in Central America and the Caribbean: (a) how does FinDev track the specific companies and projects that CASEIF IV and similar financial intermediaries fund with FinDev’s contribution; (b) how do CASEIF IV and similar financial intermediaries report to FinDev about the results of the end-use of their funds; (c) what projects and companies does FinDev fund through CASEIF IV; (d) how does FinDev vote, recommend, or advise the administrators of the CASEIF IV about how FinDev wants its contributions used; (e) how does FinDev follow up to ensure that its requests are respected; and (f) to what extent have they been respected to date?
Response
Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion and Economic Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), funds like CASEIF IV submit drawdown requests to all the Limited Partners specifying the application of funds including details on the portfolio companies that will be supported with the funding request. Application of funds are allocated based on the drawdown request. CASEIF IV and other similar financial intermediaries provide quarterly and annual reporting that includes portfolio updates, Financial Statements and a Capital Account Statement with the value attributable to each Limited Partner.
With regard to (b), CASEIF IV and other similar financial intermediaries provide quarterly and annual reporting that includes portfolio updates, Financial Statements and a Capital Account Statement with the value attributable to each Limited Partner.
With regard to (c), CASEIF IV is a generalist growth equity fund for small and medium sized enterprises in Central America, Panama, Dominican Republic and Colombia. CASEIF IV supports companies within key target sectors, namely the agribusiness value chain, renewable energy (up to 25MW generation), food and beverages processing, manufacturing, education and IT, that promote development and fight poverty by enhancing sustainable growth in alignment with FinDev Canada’s development impact goals. As of today, the CASEIF IV investment portfolio consists of two entities, a loan to a retail company and an equity investment in a food and beverage processing company.
With regard to (d), in accordance with FinDev Canada’s Development Impact Framework, eligible transactions are assessed for their current and potential development impact on women’s economic empowerment, climate action and local market development. Contributions from FinDev Canada and other Limited Partners towards investments administered by CASEIF IV are governed by a Limited Partners Agreement (LPA) that includes an Investment Policy with each of the Limited Partners participating pro rata in each of the underlying investments unless a predefined opt out criteria is communicated upfront.
Compliance with the LPA and other Fund Documents are monitored via the quarterly and annual reporting and compliance undertakings provided with each drawdown request. The Limited Partners Advisory Committee meets at least annually or more frequent when required for decisions that required Advisory Committee approval. Deviations from the Investment Policy requires Advisory Committee approval. As a limited liability partner, FinDev Canada does not participate in the management of the Fund.
With regard to (e), FinDev follows up to ensure that its requests are respected through review of quarterly and annual reporting, quarterly valuation review, monitoring reports, request for additional information if required.
With regard to (f), CASEIF IV is in good standing with all requirements having been respected to date.
Question No. 1634—
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and international students, broken down by year the international student arrived in Canada, for each of the last five years: (a) how many times was IRCC notified that the student was changing the designated learning institution; and (b) of the changes in (a), in how many instances did IRCC receive notice within (i) one week, (ii) 30 days, (iii) 90 days, (iv) six months, (v) one year, of the student arriving in Canada?
Response
Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when students change institutions, they are to report it through their MyAccount profile. This data, however, is embedded within the student’s Global Case Management System case file in such a way that it is not possible to extract for reporting purposes within the timeframe of a written question.
Question No. 1638—
Mr. Todd Doherty:
With regard to government advertising being flagged for being partisan, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all ads which were flagged, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of advertisement, (iii) subject matter, (iv) description of the content, (v) government response to the flag, including whether the advertisement was edited or removed?
Response
Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in 2016, the Government of Canada established a mandatory non-partisan external review process as part of a commitment to strengthen the oversight of government advertising. Ad Standards, the independent, not-for-profit, self-regulatory body that administers the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards was contracted to undertake this work.
At that time, advertising campaigns with budgets over $500,000 were subject to the process. In April 2020, the threshold for a mandatory review was reduced to $250,000. Departments may also submit campaigns that fall below the threshold for review.
All information on the advertising oversight mechanism, including the criteria used to evaluate advertising creatives and the two-stage review process, is publicly available on the Advertising oversight mechanism page: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/government-communications/advertising-oversight-mechanism.html.
All results of the reviews by Ad Standards are posted on the Review results and decisions page: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/government-communications/advertising-oversight-mechanism/review-results-decisions.html
The results are broken down by fiscal year, department, campaign name and details on modifications made following an initial review. As outlined on the Review results and decisions page, all flagged issues must be addressed, and the modified ad creatives must pass a final review from Ad Standards before being published or aired.
In addition to the non-partisan external review process, a complaints mechanism was established in 2020 to allow the public to flag any Government of Canada advertising that they perceive to be partisan. TBS is responsible for reviewing and reporting details of the complaints publicly on Canada.ca here: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/government-communications/advertising-oversight-mechanism/submitting-complaint-about-partisanship-in-gc-advertising.html
To date, TBS has reviewed a total of five complaints. The advertisements in question were deemed to meet the review criteria and no action was required.
Question No. 1640—
Mrs. Tracy Gray:
With regard to the government's commitments on the completion of the Okanagan Rail Trail project and the federal Addition to Reserve (ATR) process for the Duck Lake Indian Reserve No. 7 (IR#7): (a) what is the status of the ATR to Duck Lake IR#7 of former CN Rail land; (b) what are the exact areas of negotiation which have (i) been resolved, (ii) not yet been resolved, to complete the ATR; (c) how many meetings or briefings have the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or the Minister of Indigenous Services had regarding the Okanagan Rail Trail project or the ATR to Duck Lake IR#7 since November 26, 2022, and what are the details of each meeting or briefing, including the dates and names or titles of participants; (d) when was the last communication sent by the government to the Duck Lake IR#7 or the Okanagan Indian Band regarding the ATR and what is the summary of contents or other details about the last communication; and (e) what is the estimated timeline for the completion of the ATR?
Response
Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, insofar as Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, is concerned, the response to part (a) is that ISC continues to support the Okanagan Indian Band with the Addition to Reserve of the former Canadian National Rail corridor lands bisecting Duck Lake Indian Reserve No. 7. Canadian National Rail is currently the registered owner of the lands in fee simple and Canada has previously provided Canadian National Rail with a draft Agreement of Purchase and Sale to support the transfer of lands to Canada for the use and benefit of the Band. Negotiations around the Purchase and Sale Agreement are ongoing between Canadian National Rail, Okanagan Indian Band and Canada.
With regard to (i) of part (b), since the parties are in confidential negotiations on terms of land instruments such as permits under the Indian Act, it is not appropriate for the department to comment.
With regard to (ii) of part (b), Okanagan Indian Band continues to work to resolve third-party interests including property rights required by telecommunications providers, electrical transmission and distribution services, sewer utility interests, and access agreements for on-reserve developments. Okanagan Indian Band has taken the lead on these negotiations and has the support of legal and technical experts working to satisfy Additions to Reserve requirements. Canada has offered to support the Band with their negotiations and has assisted with providing template documents.
With regard to (c), there have been no meetings or briefings on this project with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or the Minister of ISC since November 26, 2022. At their request, Okanagan Indian Band has been leading these discussions with support from ISC Meetings occur approximately every six weeks, the last meeting occurring on May 16, 2023, with regular communication occurring between ISC and Okanagan Indian Band between meetings. Okanagan Indian Band is aware that ISC officials are available to meet at any time to progress this addition to reserve.
With regard to (d), the last communication between ISC and Okanagan Indian Band regarding the Addition to Reserve was sent on June 15, 2023. The email communication was regarding natural gas and electrical distribution permits. The permits are currently being drafted by respective legal counsels of the third-party interest holders, Canada, and Okanagan Indian Band as a requirement of the Additions to Reserve process.
With regard to (e), it is difficult to estimate timelines for completion as completion of the Addition to Reserve is subject to the readiness and willingness of third-party interest holders to terminate or negotiate and execute federal replacement interests with Okanagan Indian Band. This is an ISC priority file and the department continues to work in collaboration with Okanagan Indian Band to complete the Additions to Reserve. The estimated timeline for this submission is within the second quarter of 2023-2024, however, this timeline is dependent on the timely and successful execution of the utility agreements. Once this former railway line can be formally confirmed as added to Duck Lake Indian Reserve No. 7, it will be Okanagan Indian Band’s discretion on how the land will be used.
Question No. 1646—
Mr. Ryan Williams:
With regard to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s 2022 Business Accelerators and Incubators Performance Measurement Framework Survey: (a) how many accelerators and incubators (i) were invited to respond, (ii) responded; (b) for each respondent in (a), what were their responses to questions in Part A of the survey, broken down by question; (c) how many companies (i) were invited to respond, (ii) responded; and (d) for each respondent in (c), what were their responses to questions in Part B of the survey, broken down by question?
Response
Hon. Rechie Valdez (Minister of Small Business, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (i) of part (a), business accelerators and incubators, or BAIs, are organizations that provide business support and advisory services to start-ups. The Business Accelerator and Incubator Performance Measurement Framework, or BAI PMF, was co-created by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, and the BAI community and, since 2020, it is delivered in partnership with the Canada Accelerator Incubator Network, or CAIN, and the Mouvement des accélérateurs d'innovation du Québec, or MAIN. The survey is composed of a part A and a part B. Part A of the survey is intended to be filled out by the BAI, while part B of the survey is meant for the companies supported by that BAI. A single BAI could support anywhere from just a handful to thousands of companies per year. For each BAI participant, there will be more than one company supported. Part A of the survey represents the BAI, while Part B represents the companies supported by the BAI. CAIN and MAIN promote this project and invite the participation from their networks and the wider BAI community to participate to the survey. CAIN’s community includes more that 125 BAIs and MAIN’s network consists of 167 organizations ranging from BAIs, universities and researchers, municipalities, and investors. The exact number of BAIs invited to respond to the 2022 survey is unknown.
With regard to (ii) of part (a), 20 BAIs responded to the survey in 2018, increasing to 31 in 2019, 28 in 2020, and 33 in 2021. The BAI PMF collects survey data for the previous calendar year, that is to say data collected in 2018 was for companies receiving BAI programming in 2017. The 2022 survey data has been submitted to Statistics Canada for analysis.
With regard to (b), ISED does not have the 2022 list of BAI participants yet. As per project parameters, identifiable micro-data, i.e. the response provided by each BAI and company to each question, will be available only to Statistics Canada researchers and will be governed by strict confidentiality measures. As a general rule, public reports assessing the economic impact of BAIs in Canada will only include aggregated descriptive statistics, and only in cases in which there are sufficient observations to maintain firm level confidentiality. ISED does not have permission to share survey data publicly. Further details are available online at https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/sme-research-statistics/en/business-accelerators-and-incubators/bai-performance-measurement-framework/2019-bai-performance-measurement-framework-20#Toc4579868.
With regard to (i) of part (c), ISED does not have that information. Each BAI participant is responsible for selecting which companies to survey and for implementing the survey.
With regard to (ii) of part (c), the number of companies per year reflected in the analysis are: 539 companies in 2018, 2,461 in 2019, 2,116 for 2020, and 1,877 in 2021. The 2022 survey data has been submitted to Statistics Canada for analysis.
With regard to (d), ISED does not have that information. As per project parameters, identifiable micro-data will be available only to Statistics Canada researchers and will be governed by strict confidentiality measures. As a general rule, public reports assessing the economic impact of BAIs in Canada will only include aggregated descriptive statistics, and only in cases in which there are sufficient observations to maintain firm level confidentiality. ISED does not have permission to share survey data publicly. Further details are available online at https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/sme-research-statistics/en/business-accelerators-and-incubators/bai-performance-measurement-framework/2019-bai-performance-measurement-framework-20#Toc4579868.
Question No. 1653—
Mr. Alistair MacGregor:
With regard to the targets in the Food Policy for Canada: (a) does the government believe that keeping the price of food low will help ensure Canadians have access to food and contribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of ending hunger by 2030; (b) what efforts has the Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council made to ensure that affordability is included and measured as a target of the Food Policy for Canada; and (c) what are the details of all community-based initiatives that have been invested in, including the (i) name of the project, (ii) amount of funding received, (iii) expected outcomes?
Response
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada recognizes that rising inflation is challenging many Canadians to meet their essential needs, including accessing food.
The Food Policy for Canada has a suite of measures to strengthen food systems and improve Canadians’ food security through an initial investment of $134.4 million, and an additional $10 million in Budget 2023 for community-led infrastructure projects to promote access to nutritious food.
The Government of Canada is working to make life more affordable for Canadians and contributing to the United Nations Sustainable Develop Goal of ending hunger by 2030. The government delivered important improvements to a range of income supports, such as the Canada Child Benefit, old age security, guaranteed income supplement, and tax credits for low-income workers and their families. The 2023 federal budget included a new, one-time Grocery Rebate to offer inflation relief to lower-income families which was dispersed on July 5, 2023.
With regard to (b), after the Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council was established in 2021, a working group was assembled to make recommendations to the Minister related to reducing food insecurity in Canada. The working group presented 3 recommendations: (1) Set a target to reduce food insecurity by 50% by 2030, based on the Canadian Income Survey's 2019 baseline. Further, seek to eliminate severe food insecurity. (2) Alleviate the disproportionate impact of food insecurity on Black and Indigenous people; and (3) Enhance measurement of food insecurity in Canada noting the comprehensive report that was submitted with recommendations on measurement and reporting.
With regard to (c), the Government of Canada has invested significantly into community-based initiatives to support Canada’s food systems. Under the Food Policy for Canada, the 5 year Local Food Infrastructure Fund, or LFIF, is designed to improve access to safe, nutritious, and culturally diverse food. It provides support to community-based, not-for-profit organizations to reduce food insecurity by establishing and/or strengthening local food systems.
A comprehensive accounting of projects funded under the Local Food Infrastructure Fund, including the name of the recipient, the agreement number and duration, a brief project description, the funding amount and location of the recipient are listed as part of the Open Government website.
For example, in 2022, Cold Lake First Nations received just over $200,000 Canadian to create a food system. The objective of this project is to purchase food processing equipment, cold and dry storage, fish harvesting equipment, food forest, garden beds with irrigation and kitchen upgrades.
Question No. 1659—
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the government’s research and analysis on policies and programs that could reduce the poverty rate for children, since fiscal year 2014-15: (a) what reports, studies, or analyses have been done on implementing a guaranteed livable income; (b) of the reports in (a), what studies incorporated the Canada Emergency Response Benefit or the Canada Recovery Benefit; (c) what were the conclusions of each report listed in (b); and (d) which jurisdictions were included in the government’s review of existing basic income projects to help reduce child poverty?
Response
Hon. Randy Boissonnault (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, monitors basic income research and reports, as well as the outcomes of basic income pilots in Canada and internationally. ESDC conducts ongoing policy analysis of basic income in a Canadian context and has identified many considerations including benefit level and cost, program design and interaction with existing benefits, implementation and interaction with provincial/territorial programming, and impact on the labour market. Recent analyses on basic income have not incorporated consideration of the precise parameters and impacts of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit or the Canada Recovery Benefit.
With regard to (c), some of the Government’s programs have many features of a partial basic income. This includes the Canada Child Benefit for families and the Guaranteed Income Supplement for low-income seniors. Moreover, if a provincial or territorial government decides to proceed with a basic income pilot, ESDC would be pleased to share federal-level administrative, survey, and tax data that could support program design and evaluation.
For proactive disclosure purposes, a Question Period note on basic income is available at https://search.open.canada.ca/qpnotes/record/esdc-edsc,GouldJan2022-011
With regard to (d), ESDC’s review of existing and past basic income projects includes domestic projects in Ontario and Manitoba and international projects in Finland, the Netherlands, the United States and Spain.
For proactive disclosure purposes, a HUMA Committee binder for the Minister of Seniors dated May 25, 2021, on the impact of COVID-19 on seniors, including the topic of basic income, is available at https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/corporate/reports/committe-binders/may-25-minister.html
Question No. 1660—
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the timeline of the government’s negotiations concerning the NextStar Energy battery plant in Windsor, Ontario: (a) on what date did the government enter into negotiations with Stellantis to ensure this facility would provide good paying jobs to workers; (b) what are the details of all agreements reached between Stellantis and the government that were made prior to May 15, 2023, including the (i) date the agreement was made, (ii) obligations of the government, (iii) document title or reference number, if the agreement was in writing; and (c) did the government have an agreement in writing with Stellantis prior to August 16, 2022?
Response
Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a). there are two agreements currently in place with respect to the NextStar Energy battery plant in Windsor, Ontario. The first is the Contribution Agreement with NextStar for the construction of the plant under the Strategic Innovation Fund, or SIF, and the second is a Special Contribution Agreement, which was negotiated as part of the Government of Canada’s response to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA.
The SIF received approval to enter formal negotiations of the Term Sheet on February 26, 2022, while negotiations with respect to Canada’s response to the IRA were initiated after a letter was sent to the company on November 25, 2022.
The SIF received approval to finalize the Contribution Agreement on July 22, 2022, and approval to finalize the Special Contribution Agreement was received on June 29, 2023.
With regard to (i) of part (b), NextStar’s SIF Contribution Agreement was executed on September 30, 2022. With respect to the Government’s response to the IRA, no agreement had been reached prior to May 15, 2023. Since this time, the Special Contribution Agreement with NextStar was executed on July 5, 2023.
With regard to (ii) of part (b), the obligations of the government under the SIF can be found on the Projects: Strategic Innovation Fund site. The site provides an overview of all announced and active SIF projects.
Information with respect to the government’s obligations under the Special Contribution Agreement was released in a statement from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The statement can be found on the site Canada and Ontario Establish An Auto Pact to Secure Stellantis-LGES and Volkswagen deals.
With regard to (iii) of part (b), the document title of the SIF agreement is: NextStar Contribution Agreement. With respect to the response to the IRA the document title is: Special Contribution Agreement for Lithium Ion Battery Manufacturing in Canada.
With regard to (c), as previously indicated, NextStar’s Contribution Agreement with SIF was executed on September 30, 2022. The work phase of the Stellantis project dates back to August 16, 2021, meaning the recipient is able to submit claims for eligible supported costs dating back to August 16, 2021.
With respect to Canada’s response to the IRA, the Government of Canada did not have an agreement in writing with Stellantis prior to August 16, 2022.
Question No. 1661—
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's regulations concerning amortizations periods for new mortgages: (a) what reports or analyses has the government conducted concerning increasing the amortization period up to 30 years; (b) what recommendations did the reports in (a) make; (c) does the government believe that increasing amortization periods to 30 years would make buying a new home more affordable; and (d) does the government intend to introduce legislative changes to increase amortization periods?
Response
Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, changes concerning amortization periods for insured mortgages falls under the purview of the Minister of Finance.
Question No. 1664—
Ms. Lisa Marie Barron:
With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard’s Coastal Marine Response Network, broken down by coastal region: (a) what is the total number of coastal marine response teams ready to respond to incidents; and (b) what are the details of each team in (a), including the (i) location, (ii) number of individuals employed, (iii) funding provided by the government for equipment acquisition?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Canadian Coast Guard’s Coastal Marine Response Network, broken down by coastal region, with regard to (a), the Coastal Marine Response Team initiative is in its planning stage only so there are not yet any teams established and ready to respond to incidents. Indigenous and coastal communities are being engaged to determine their interest in co-developing this community response initiative. A pilot project that is a precursor to the Coastal Marine Response Team known as the Heiltsuk Marine Emergency Response Team, which is funded and supported as part of the Oceans Protection Plan renewal, is currently operating, with 12 response personnel, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on the central coast of British Columbia in close collaboration with the Canadian Coast Guard. Coastal Marine Response Teams are anticipated to become operational beginning in 2025.
With regard to (b), as the initiative is in its planning stage there are no established teams, locations or individuals employed at this time. Nor has equipment been purchased through government funding.
Question No. 1669—
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the Black Entrepreneurship Program (BEP): (a) how many applicants applied to the BEP Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund, since the program was launched; (b) of the $160 million allocated to the Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund, (i) how much has been delivered to the successful applicants, (ii) what is the average loan amount; and (c) under the $92 million approved funding for the Ecosystem Fund component of the BEP, what metrics will be used to determine if program goals were met?
Response
Hon. Rechie Valdez (Minister of Small Business, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Black Entrepreneurship Program, or BEP, builds on the broader Government of Canada commitment to address systemic barriers and racism against Black Canadians. The three pillars of the BEP were developed in consultation with Black Canadian communities to reflect the realities and needs of Black Canadians and is managed by Black led organizations to create stronger economic opportunities for Black Canadian business owners and entrepreneurs.
With regard to (a), the number of applicants that have submitted complete applications to the Black Entrepreneurship Program Loan Fund as at May 31, 2023 was 3,679.
With regard to (i) of part (b), the $160 million allocated to the Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund is composed of two amounts: $30 million in Government funding through a contribution agreement with the Federation of African Canadian Economics, or FACE; and $130 million commitment of funds by the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC, to the Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund. The $130 million are BDC funds, not appropriations, that are allocated as required when loans are approved.
As at May 31, 2023, the total amount of loans disbursed was $27,623,585. Government and BDC funds are part of this total.
With regard to (i) of part (b), the average loan amount as at May 31, 2023 was $90,351.
With regard to (c), the following regional development agencies, or RDAs, are delivering the BEP Ecosystem Fund in their respective regions: the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA; the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, or CED-Q; the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, or FedNor; the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, or FedDev Ontario; Prairies Economic Development Canada, or PrairiesCan; and Pacific Economic Development Canada, or PacifiCan.
Several metrics will be used to determine the ecosystem fund’s performance, which will be measured annually. These may include the number and value of projects approved by the ecosystem fund; the growth in the number of clients served; and the number of under-represented groups supported by the ecosystem fund, such as women and youth. These metrics are in addition to RDAs’ robust due diligence requirements related to project management, finance and reporting, such as analyzing the project’s viability and conducting a thorough client evaluation. Overall results from the BEP Ecosystem Fund will be included in each RDA’s Departmental Results Framework and will contribute to their shared core responsibility to support economic development in each region of Canada.
Question No. 1670—
Mr. Brad Vis:
With regard to the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy (WES): (a) how many applicants applied to the WES Inclusive Women Venture Capital Initiative; (b) of the $15 million allocated to the Inclusive Women Venture Capital Initiative in budget 2021, how much of the funding has been delivered to successful applicants; (c) how many women entrepreneurs have accessed capital under the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund since the program started in 2018; (d) of the $55 million allocated to the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund in budget 2021, how much of the funding has been delivered to successful applicants; (e) how many applicants applied to the WES Ecosystem Fund (i) during the first call (January 11 to March 15, 2022), (ii) during the second call (July 28 to September 26, 2022); (f) of the $25 million allocated to the WES Ecosystem Fund's first call, how much of the funding was delivered; and (g) of the $40 million allocated to WES Ecosystem's second call, how much of the funding was delivered?
Response
Hon. Rechie Valdez (Minister of Small Business, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy, or WES, represents nearly $7 billion in investments and commitments from almost 20 different federal departments, agencies, and Crown corporations. This investment represents a “whole of government” approach to increasing women-owned businesses’ access to the financing, talent, networks, and expertise they need to start up, scale up, and access new markets. There are a number of initiatives under the strategy.
First launched through Budget 2018, the Government of Canada announced, in Budget 2021, new investments of $146.9 million over four years, starting in 2021-22, to further strengthen the WES. The new investments from Budget 2021 were used to create the Inclusive Women Venture Capital Initiative and the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund, as well as provide further funding to the WES Ecosystem Fund.
With regard to (a), the Inclusive Women Venture Capital Initiative, which is a part of the WES, funds projects led by not-for-profit organizations to strengthen and build a more inclusive risk and venture capital environment for Canadian women.
Twenty-six applications were received under the Inclusive Women Venture Capital Initiative, and five recipients were announced on March 8, 2023: the National Angel Capital Organization, or NACO; the Canadian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association, or CVCA; the Small Scale Food Processor Association; Social Venture Connection, or SVX; and Elevate Toronto. The news release can be found on the following site: Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development announces the next phase of the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy - Canada.ca.
With regard to (b), the Inclusive Women Venture Capital Initiative funding will be allocated and delivered over fiscal years 2023-24 and 2024-25.
With regard to (c), another component of the WES, the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund, was announced on March 8, 2022, and provides loans of up to $50,000 to diverse women entrepreneurs. Following a competitive call for proposals, the following five organizations were selected as loan administrators: the Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation, Coralus, the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association, Evol, and the Women’s Enterprise Organizations of Canada. The news release can be found on the following site: Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development announces the next phase of the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy - Canada.ca.
As at March 31, 2023, 185 women entrepreneurs have received loans to help start or grow their businesses since the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund became available in 2022.
With regard to (d), loans totalling more than $4.6 million have been delivered as at March 31, 2023 through the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund.
With regard to (i) of part (e), first launched in 2018, the WES Ecosystem Fund, which is also a part of the WES, is designed to help not-for-profit, third-party organizations strengthen capacity within the entrepreneurship ecosystem and offer business support such as training, mentorship, and financial literacy for women entrepreneurs.
Budget 2018 provided the WES Ecosystem Fund with $85 million, and it supported 52 projects. Budget 2021 provided renewed funding of $65 million for the WES Ecosystem Fund, which was allocated through two separate calls for applications referred to as “the first call” and “the second call” respectively.
In 2022, under the first call of the WES Ecosystem Fund, 101 applications were received and 8 were funded. Recipients of funding were announced on March 8, 2023. The news release can be found on the following site: International Women’s Day 2023: Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development announces recipients of funding under the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy - Canada.ca.
With regard to (ii) of part (e), in 2022, under the second call of the WES Ecosystem Fund, 97 applications were received and 16 were funded. Recipients of funding were announced on March 8, 2023. The news release can be found on the following site: International Women’s Day 2023: Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development announces recipients of funding under the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy - Canada.ca.
With regard to (f), as at May 31, 2023, approximately $2.1 million of funding has been delivered to successful recipients under the first call of the WES Ecosystem Fund.
With regard to (g), the WES Ecosystem Fund funding for the second call will be allocated and delivered over fiscal years 2023-24 and 2024-25.
Question No. 1671—
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice:
With regard to Export Development Canada’s Canada account transactions to guarantee financing provided by commercial lenders to the Trans Mountain Corporation signed on April 20, 2022, March 24, 2023 and May 2, 2023, for each transaction: (a) was an assessment of the commercial viability of Trans Mountain Corporation completed prior to the guarantees being approved; (b) what evidence did the government rely on to complete this assessment; (c) what evidence did the Trans Mountain Corporation provide that it would be able to repay its commercial lenders; (d) what are the terms of the loan guarantees; and (e) if the Trans Mountain Corporation is unable to cover its debt to commercial lenders, what organizations within the government will be responsible for repayment?
Response
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, these transactions were made under the Canada Account. The Canada Account is used to support export transactions which Export Development Canada is unable to support, but which are determined by the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, in concurrence with the Minister of Finance, to be in Canada's national interest. This is usually due to a combination of risks, including the size of the transaction, market risks, Export Development Canada's country capacity, borrower risks, or the financing conditions. All Canada Account transactions are disclosed on the following website: https://www.edc.ca/en/about-us/corporate/disclosure/reporting-transactions/canada-account.html
Question No. 1677—
Mr. Alex Ruff:
With regard to the government halting activity with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB): (a) was an initial risk analysis of the organization completed prior to Canada partaking in the activities of the bank pertaining to Chinese Communist Party (CCP) influence, and, if so, what were the findings; (b) were concerns regarding CCP infiltration or control within the bank raised from Canadian executives to any federal departments prior to Bob Pickard resigning his post at the bank, and, if so, how were these concerns addressed; (c) does the AIIB have access to sensitive business and personal documents pertaining to businesses and citizens in Canada; (d) who or what department is tasked with conducting a review of AIIB and when will the review be completed; (e) how much money has Canada provided to the AIIB; and (f) of the money in (e), how much does the government expect to get back from the AIIB, and by what date?
Response
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have instructed the Department of Finance to conduct a review of the allegations raised and of Canada’s involvement in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This review is ongoing.
Question No. 1680—
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the hiring and training of border services officers for the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) across Canada: (a) how many new CBSA officers were hired and trained in Canada since 2012; and (b) how many are projected to be hired in the next five years with the construction of the new Gordie Howe Bridge?
Response
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the data was obtained using the CBSA's Corporate Administrative System, or CAS, and covers the period from January 1, 2012, to June 27, 2023.
With regard to (a), in 2012, 161 recruits became border services officers, or BSOs, and since the introduction of the Officer Induction Training Program, or OITP, the CBSA has trained 3,269 recruits. Therefore, the CBSA has had a total of 3,430 BSOs and BSO Trainees since 2012.
With regard to (b), the CBSA will be hiring approximately 260 BSOs to meet its staffing requirements at the Gordie Howe International Bridge.
Question No. 1686—
Mr. Mel Arnold:
With regard to the Pacific Salmon Strategic Initiative (PSSI) announced on June 8, 2021: (a) what is the breakdown of how the $647.1 million is allocated in budget 2021; and (b) what is the breakdown of how the $98.9 million in amortization is allocated to (i) conservation and stewardship, (ii) enhanced hatchery production, (iii) harvest transformation, (iv) integrated management and collaboration, (v) contracted services, (vi) grants and other non-repayable disbursements to non-government entities?
Response
Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Pacific Salmon Strategic Initiative, or PSSI, announced on June 8, 2021, and with regard to (a), Budget 2021 announced $647.1 million over five years plus $98.9 million in amortization as the accrual budget to implement PSSI. The $647.1 million funding breakdown is as follows: $346.4 million for Vote 1, $26.2 million for Vote 5, and $274.5 million for Vote 10.
With regard to (b), the $98.9 million is the amount of amortization that remains related to the Vote 5 allocation provided to PSSI over a five-year period commencing in 2021-22. When added to the $26.2 million referenced above, the total Vote 5 allocation is $125.1 million, which is broken down by the following assets: $81.5 million for buildings; $21.2 million for leasehold improvements for buildings; $8.3 million for communications equipment; $7.3 million for trailers; $3.5 million for vehicles; $2.6 million for scientific and laboratory equipment; $600,000 for vessels, and $15,000 for trades support equipment.
Question No. 1691—
Ms. Leslyn Lewis:
With regard to the government’s calculations for nitrous oxide emissions associated with nitrogen fertilizer use: (a) what were the data sources the government based its calculations on for the current nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer use in Canada; (b) what data and emissions calculations did the government receive from each source in (a); (c) how did the government calculate the (i) total direct and indirect nitrous oxide emissions from the agricultural sector, each year from 2005 to 2020, (ii) sector’s share of national nitrous oxide emissions and percentage changes over time; and (d) what were the specific policy and scientific rationales for choosing a 30% reduction fertilizer emissions threshold?
Response
Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the government’s calculations for nitrous oxide emissions associated with nitrogen fertilizer use are published in the National Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Report, which is accessible at https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.506002/publication.html.
With regard to (b), the government received data on fertilizer use, in agricultural markets each year, in metric tonnes of nitrogen, and at a provincial scale.
There are no known nationally representative statistics available to the government that track the quantity of nitrogen fertilizers applied on farms. As a result, the provincial fertilizer statistics are used as a proxy.
With regard to (i) of part (c), the government uses methodologies consistent with the 2006 guidelines from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, that use, for the most part, country-specific parameters derived from Canadian research as reported in the National GHG Inventory Report.
A detailed description of the methodology is available in Annex 3.4, section A3.4.5, in Part 2 of the 1990-2021 National Inventory Report. Nitrogen from organic and inorganic sources are distributed to the landscape according to the procedure described at the beginning of section A3.4.5.
Regarding direct emissions, the current approach is based on three Canadian scientific publications, namely Liang et al. 2020; Rochette et al. 2018; and Pelster et al. 2022, which summarize the research that has been carried out in Canada over the past 30 years. A base Emission Factor, or EF, for growing season and non-growing season nitrous oxide emissions is established for areas of Canada that have a unique combination of climate, landscape and soils, called ecodistricts considering multiple factors including the topography of the cropland, moisture regimes, precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, and soil texture, all of which influence how much nitrous oxide is emitted when fertilizer is applied. These base EFs are then further adjusted with factors to account for the nitrogen source, cropping system, tillage and irrigation, which are additional factors that relate to how farmers manage the land that further impact the amount of nitrous oxide that is emitted to the atmosphere.
As for indirect emissions, these are estimated from volatilization and redeposition of nitrogen, and leaching and runoff losses.
A country-specific method was used to estimate ammonia emissions from inorganic nitrogen application. This approach derives ammonia emission factors based on the type of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers, the degree of incorporation into soil, crop type and soil chemical properties.
For leaching and runoff losses, a modified IPCC Tier 1 methodology is used to estimate nitrous oxide emissions from leaching and runoff of inorganic and organic nitrogen fertilizers, and crop residue nitrogen from agricultural soils. The fraction of nitrogen leached from the soil is determined for each ecodistrict and varies from 0.05 to 0.3, depending on the climatic characteristics of the region.
More details on specific equations used in the direct and indirect emission calculations are published in the National Inventory Report Annex 3.4, ECCC, 2023.
With regard to (ii) of part (c), the agriculture sector’s share of emissions are calculated based on the results reported in the National GHG Inventory Report. The fraction is based on the quantity of emissions coming from the agricultural sector, which are reported in Chapter 6 of the National Inventory Report, relative to the total sum of all nitrous oxide emissions coming from all sectors in the inventory report.
In 2021, the agricultural sector emitted 54 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or 8.1% of Canada’s total emissions, which are 670 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils were 19 megatonnes in 2021, making up 35% of the emissions from the agricultural sector. Nitrous oxide emissions increased from 15 megatonnes in 1990 to 23 megatonnes in 2021, representing an increase of 52%.
In 2021, nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture, or 23 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, contributed to 75% of Canada’s total nitrous oxide emissions, or 30 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. The contribution of agricultural nitrous oxide to national nitrous oxide emissions rose from 43% in 1990 to 75% in 2021.
With regard to (d), the fertilizer target was developed based on scientific literature and internal analysis that points to the potential for optimizing nitrogen fertilizer use with an accompanying reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, while maintaining or increasing yield. The reduction percentage of 30% was the result of an iterative process weighting various factors and characteristics, such as: ambitious, considering climate goals and international efforts; technically achievable, given that the technologies and know-how largely exist; economically feasible, given potential cost savings and increased yield through efficiency gains and better management; and scientifically defensible, given that it is supported by research findings relevant to Canadian context.